Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Evaluating Criteria to Consider When Redesigning Learning Environments for the Next
Generation of Students and Teachers
Contributor
Jacqueline Long
University of Arkansas
Identifying Criteria for Redesigning Learning Environments 2
Identifying Criteria for Redesigning Learning Environments for the Next Generation of 21st Century
Students and Teachers
Abstract
This theoretical paper is a work in progress that discusses results from a literature review and
practitioner observations that investigated the question, Given the vast changes in technology, social
interactions, the environment, and international events, how do we redesign learning environments to
meet these changes for the next generation of both students and teachers in the 21st Century? The
research objective was three-fold: 1) to unveil the most prevalent practices driving the need to create
new learning environments, 2) identify conditions that support innovations in the redesign of learning
environments to address 21st century reform in pedagogy and new educational organization designs
and 3) advance the conversation on the posited question. Methodology was a qualitative literature
review, which included an electronic Web and library review. The expected outcome included
expanded understanding of six research themes to advance research on this important question and the
Conceptual Framework
Effective leaders in complex organizations must be able to make optimal use of domestic and
worldwide knowledge networks and their access to limitless information. Leaders must begin to make
unprecedented efforts to address the fundamental origin of relationships between educational and societal
problems to guide decision-making and solutions for designing new learning places for students and teachers.
Being an effective leader in a complex educational organization requires a leader to be a skillful learner and
have the ability to drive decision-making to ensure the change process involves multiple stakeholders and
diverse goals, objectives and needs. While there are many leadership theories that describe leadership styles and
practices, our focus is on the leader’s responsibility to provide appropriate learning and instructional settings
conducive to learners’ needs for the 21st Century. I cite following as a profound perspective about the
The older model of higher education, more appropriate to the industrial age, is centered on its
providers, who are presumed to know everything there is to know about a subject, and who transmit it
to fairly passive students seated in a classroom, at a time convenient to the instructor, listening to the
instruction for 45 hours during the course of a semester. Students who spend this time in seat,
multiplied by 40 courses over a period of 4 or more years, are granted a B.A. degree. The new
demands of the knowledge-based economy require a transformation of this model to one in which
education is centered on the student as learner, who needs to develop the capacity to search, select and
Among the most pivotal leadership theory within the conceptual framework for this conceptual paper is that of
Peter Senge, who is credited for creating the theory of the learning organization that emerged in his renowned
work in 1994, The Fifth Discipline. In this pivotal work he describes a systems thinking approach to
organizational management, development and sustainability based on long-term solutions vs. quick fixes.
Leaders can no longer rely on quick fix solutions of the past in new technological environments. Senge’s theory
and the relationship to the primary question is discussed in further in this paper (Senge, et al, 1998; Senge,
…organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire,
where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and
organization.htm
The problem of leadership taking on more responsibility for redesigning new learning environments is complex
in today’s educational leadership, policy and practice environment. Previous studies linked to other educational
leadership research in the field address the problem but not always from a systems leadership and management
point-of-view.
Limitations. An existent research limitation in this paper is linking new educational leadership skills,
qualities and philosophies to a hypotheses or research objectives to theory. Also, still to be considered is how
the final hypotheses will emerge in relation to the research design to study the evolving questions about criteria
for guiding new professional development guidelines to prepare educational leadership and management
Identifying Criteria for Redesigning Learning Environments 5
professional as 21st Century leaders with the capacity to lead designing new learning settings, especially
distance learning.
This paper aims to expand understanding about theoretical and practical underpinnings and
implications involved in developing a solution-oriented model for creating new or modernizing traditional
learning environments. The anticipated outcomes for this work-in progress is a well-developed, concise, and
clearly defined problem statement that will lay the foundation for advancing the conceptual framework and/or
collaborative research project to continue this research agenda. The purpose is to share information and expand
understanding about gaps in knowledge about criteria that is necessary to consider when redesigning learning
environments for the next generation of 21st century students and teachers.
Research Questions
The primary question in this review draws heavily on the literature to examine the issue, “Given the
vast changes in technology, social interactions, the environment, and international events, how do we redesign
sustainable learning environments to meet these changes for the next generation of both students and teachers in
1) What are some of the most prevalent practices driving the need to create new learning
environments?
2) What are the conditions that support innovations in the redesign of learning environments to
3) How do we advance the conversation on preparing students and future teachers to take on
Methodology
The primary method for preparing and writing this paper was a qualitative interpretive framework that
incorporated the traditional or narrative approach. Secondary methods included the experiential and
observational knowledge of the researchers. According to Cronin, Ryan, and Coughlan (2007), this type of
review critiques and summarizes a body of literature and draws conclusions about the topic in question. The
body of literature cited in this paper is made up of relevant studies and knowledge that address the primary and
secondary questions on the topic Evaluating Criteria to Consider When Redesigning Learning Environments
for the Next Generation of Students and Teachers. The researchers were selective in the material it uses in this
paper, although the criteria for selecting specific sources for review may not always be apparent to the reader
due to the complex interrelationships embedded in the topic. However, the researchers found this type of
review useful in gathering together a volume of literature in on this topic area, summarizing and synthesizing it.
Purpose. The purpose of this paper is to provide the reader with a comprehensive background for
understanding current knowledge and highlighting the significance of new research about the complexities for
leaders involved in redesigning learning environments for the next generation of teachers and learners.
Grounded Theory: In this research, the presenter theorizes that systems thinking and sustainability are
the new learning tools for 21st century leadership in the complex (learning) organization. The examination of the
question is pursued via a synthesis of research on the topic question of this investigation. Findings are
embedded in the discussion throughout the paper, followed by a brief summary and conclusion. The primary
question provides insight about this very complex issue that we set out to investigate. Other anticipated
questions will be based on theory, past research, experience, and need to expand on the primary question. These
questions will direct the future research methodology; their inclusion in this conceptual paper at this stage helps
to links the research problem with the methodology later. The emergent questions will direct everything that
will be done as this research idea progresses. A team approach will be used to ensure questions are accurate and
focused to the main or final research problem. The research questions will be designed to specifically direct the
research, instrumentation and the type of analyses that will be conducted to further establish reliability measures
Objectives. The research objective is three-fold aiming to: 1) unveil the most prevalent practices driving the
need to create new learning environments and 2) identify conditions that support innovations in the redesign of
learning environments to address 21st century reform in pedagogy and new educational organization designs and
3) advance the conversation on the posited question. Methodology was an integrative literature review, which
Identifying Criteria for Redesigning Learning Environments 7
included an array of resources such as an electronic Web and library review to support data collection and
This literature scan identifies major literature that supports and validates the topic question. It also focuses on
areas that offer support for new research, offers an opportunity to analyze and synthesize past research in the
context of the present problem being examined in this research. This conceptual paper attempts to provide a
glimpse into previous research to plant seeds in the mind of the reader, while suggesting more information is
needed to fully exhaust discussion on the topic. This paper is based on a wide-range literature and web reviews
that is condensed into a summary of key points. The literature is presented in six themes that emerged as
conditions for changing learning environments to address 21st Century educational needs of the next generation
of students and teachers. The emergent themes from the research about some conditions required to redesign
new equitable learning environments are 1) provide better services for teachers and students 2) invest
financially in new technologies 3) identify theoretical framework (s) for curriculum and instructional
development 4) educate leaders on new approaches for decision-making 5) articulate a clear vision for change
and 6) Utilize social-networking technology to enhance opportunities for learning and educational equity.
Identifying Criteria for Redesigning Learning Environments 8
Discussion
More than a decade ago, Adens, Sybouts & Wess (1998) at the end of the millennium, these
researchers describe in the idea of the “blossomed university” that emerged from a population growth that for
the first time in history outpaced the world’s capacity to give people access to universities. Adens, et al. (1998)
believed that a sizeable new university would now be needed every week merely to sustain current participation
rates in higher education. Since 1998, we have learned that as education and training become more important to
citizens as life long learners, education is becoming a more attractive business opportunity for entrepreneurs –-
Identifying Criteria for Redesigning Learning Environments 9
many looking to partner with public schools, colleges and universities and others desiring to provide a full
alternative. Dolence and Norris (2001) in their provocative book "Transforming Higher Education: A Vision for
Learning in the 21st Century", estimated the amount of learning required by every information-age worker by
the year 2000 will be equivalent to 30 credit hours every seven years or a master’s degree every decade. In 2010
we are experiencing this unprecedented flood of online masters degrees in every field of study.
21st Century business venture leaders have recognized this need for rethinking learning and
instructional settings and is now providing distance learning experiences to permeate the educational systems
with new learning places and designs. One has only to look at the programs provided by the Drexel Online,
University of Phoenix, Motorola, Xerox, Nova and many other corporate universities to note what might be
termed competition from the private sector. These factors should make traditional education providers who are
thinking about entering the distance learning arena more conscious of student needs or face the possibility of
private profit oriented providers taking a large portion of the popular education and training experiences and
With an increase in the number of colleges, community colleges, and universities offering distance
education classes there is an exponential increase of people, including taking distance education classes. In
addition, with the growth of educational opportunities for students at a distance from the campus, student
support systems for global learners must be developed for these distant students and students with disabilities.
The Aden’s group research found three services that are needed include: timely student feedback, on-site
support, and access to library materials; if these services are offered they will contribute to successful distance
learning experiences.
The surge in development of distance education technologies and programs is bringing new paradigms
that represent the rapid changes and challenges occurring in our educational, economical, societal and technical
support systems. Given these changes and the poor employment outlook, most people are expecting to become
lifelong learners more dependent upon formal learning environments than was the norm in previous
generations. The literature clearly suggests that while most initial formal learning may still be traditional
educational experiences in a classroom with an instructor from early childhood into high school; later formal
learning experiences may not always be possible by gathering groups of learners and instructors together in one
location.
Identifying Criteria for Redesigning Learning Environments 10
The difficulties related to grouping learners often begin when specialized learning experiences
become too costly to be provided in small high schools and later when family and job responsibilities as well as
financial constraints confine learners to situations far away from traditional learning experiences. For most
people, continued education and training are part of maintaining their employment situation, necessary to
change or enhance job opportunities, prepare for a new job when a current one is lost, or for personal
gratification.
Today’s nontraditional or distance students respond to most of the same principles of learning and
have similar social and physical needs as students in a campus setting. Therefore, secondary and post secondary
institutions choosing to provide distance learning experiences must be prepared to provide student support
When students are interacting with learning experiences, it is vitally important they have consistent
access to quality and current library resources. Leaders must visualize students at a distance as having the same
needs as students in a campus setting. Courses that are offered frequently in the same distant locations may
warrant the purchase and placement of duplicate library and media resources in the library or support service
area at the distant locations. Cooperation among local libraries and college libraries will be very important as
education continues to go global, especially in regard to interlibrary loan services. These services need to be
supported by e-mail addresses and fax numbers allowing service to students in hours convenient to both
Specialty publisher partnerships are another means to provide students at a distance with access to a
variety of information resources. Instructors using these services identify resources needed to complete the
learning experience and the publisher negotiates with the copyright holder for the clearances and costs to use
the material, which is then compiled, printed, and purchased by the student. Large amounts of printed material
can also be placed in database and sold to the student on membership basis in a more compact form such as e-
books.
Identifying Criteria for Redesigning Learning Environments 11
The Legislature as well as administrations, faculties, and support staffs of K-12 districts and post
secondary institutions must change their concept of campus from physical locations scattered about the State to
that of a statewide campus with various K-12 districts, community colleges, colleges, universities, and corporate
universities providing instructional services across this vast campus (Phillipo, 2007). All these groups must at
least recognize this development and/or embrace, cooperate, and support it with reallocation of existing
resources and possibly new resources. These groups along with the students matriculating on the extended
campus need to prepare for a steep learning curve and a number of new problems as technologies continue to
merge. Adens, et al. (1998) forecasted these problems will emerge in this century but will be remedied. As
leaders grow in knowledge, they will be required to provide for the extended campus; this is not a question of
"if it will occur", it is a question of "when it will occur". If education reform is to be the transformative
influence that it can and should be, more needs to be invested in education and the investment needs to be
Invest Financially
These are extraordinary economic times, requiring an enormous economic stimulus to avert recession
sliding into depression. These times provide cause for public investment in education on an unprecedented
scale. Historically, many government-created economic stimulate have left little to show. Tax cuts or tax rebates
feed into increased personal consumption, but this is not like investment in human capital or in physical capital,
which also have a supply-side effect and increase productivity and output later. Wars provide a boost to industry
and employment, but also leave no manifest legacy of increased productive capacity. Expanding roads may
mean increasing private transport infrastructure, which aggravates energy costs and dependencies—and in any
event, they may not be needed with the rise in telecommuting, cheaper person-to-person telecommunications,
digital delivery of formerly physical content, and better public transportation. By comparison, there are few
public infrastructure investments as evenly distributed and with as high a total return and tangible public value
than investment in human capital formation through basic and higher education
(http://education.illinois.edu/newlearning/learning-investment.html).
Education, however, also needs to use resources more effectively. It is estimated that schools are used
for only 13% of available hours in the year. In fact, the length of the school day, and the number of days in
school per calendar year, are quite low in the U.S. in relation to most of the other OECD nations—one reason
Identifying Criteria for Redesigning Learning Environments 12
perhaps for the underachievement of students in the US as measured in international tests. Instead, schools need
to become seven days per week, 7-11 resource, and a focal point of community life in a knowledge society. This
is to just to consider the way we use the physical resources of the school. Similar observations, however, could
be made of the school’s human resources. Teaching to the middle of the class, where some learners are bored
and others lost, is hardly efficient—customized learning is more efficient. And why does the ratio of learners to
teachers need to be so consistent, when today’s learning environments could span a broader range, as needed,
from one teacher to one learner, to one teacher to a great many learners? Peers or more advanced learners can
perhaps do a lot of the work of teachers, to the benefit of both amateur teacher and learner. However, this
requires a reconfiguration of the physical plant of the school, into new and more flexible spaces reflecting a
wider range of person-to-person learning relationships. The question of resource use goes to the very heart of
the business of education. Higher productivity in producing desirable education outcomes might mean we can
pay teachers much better and get better value for that pay (http://education.illinois.edu/newlearning/learning-
investment.html).
The ‘more investment’ argument can also rest on a personal case. The personal case is this: invest now
and you will reap the rewards later. But for this personal case to work, it has to be more directly personalized.
At the moment, there is a less than perfect alignment between learning investors (parents under financial
pressure from multiple sources or aging local tax communities) and learning dividend recipients (children and
future generations of productive workers). Onerous loans create a personal disincentive. Government grants can
(http://education.illinois.edu/newlearning/learning-investment.html).
The evidence shows individuals benefit directly from education in the form of receiving a higher
income. If and when you benefit, you should be directly responsible to return a portion of that benefit for the
public good. One solution would be to replace loans with an income taxation surcharge in which people repay
the cost of their post-compulsory education if and when they reach the average income. Low paid professionals
will never pay; those not working will not pay so long as they are not working. There will be additional benefits
whether an individual repays the cost of their education or not, and that is the external benefit to the society and
future generations, a benefit that would otherwise not be obtained because private families will invest too little
(http://education.illinois.edu/newlearning/learning-investment.html).
Identifying Criteria for Redesigning Learning Environments 13
It may be possible to add additional incentives that come from non-monetary private benefits to the
individual and broader systems of reward for generating external social benefits. Considerable thought has been
given in recent years to the economics of what is called ‘social production’, or non-market production that
benefits others in the society, such as the unpaid contributions to open source software, to the authorship of
Wikipedia, to the enormous community volunteer sector. This has sometimes been called a ‘reputational
(http://education.illinois.edu/newlearning/learning-investment.html).
In his radio address on the economy (Saturday, December 6, 2008) President-elect Barack Obama said
“to help our children compete in a 21st century economy, we need to send them to 21st century schools.”
Further, he stated, “my economic recovery plan will launch the most sweeping effort to modernize and upgrade
school buildings that this country has ever seen. We will repair broken schools, make them energy-efficient, and
put new computers in our classrooms.” No part of economic recovery plan is more important than rebuilding the
Too many of America’s children go to school in overcrowded buildings with leaky roofs, faulty
electrical systems, and outdated technology, all of which compromise their ability to achieve, succeed, and
develop the educational skills necessary to compete in the knowledge economy of the 21st century. A well
developed economic stimulus plan that places education at the core of rebuilding America’s infrastructure is
necessary for the nation to achieve the kind of high quality learning environment appropriate for the 21st
century (http://education.illinois.edu/newlearning/learning-investment.html).
We have known for over a decade many educational systems are fundamentally inadequate to prepare
people to compete in the knowledge economy of the 21st century. At the end of the 20th century several studies
reported that America’s school infrastructure was in poor condition and lacked the capacity to create an
environment where children could be properly educated and prepared for the 21st Century. Recognizing that the
studies in general relied too heavily on anecdotal evidence and also presented different methodological
problems, the General Accountability Office (GAO) in 1995 conducted a study that could used as a basis for
determining the condition of the nation’s education infrastructure. The GAO disseminated its study to House
and Senate committees and to all members of Congress. Congress passed the Education Infrastructure Act of
1994,8 in which it stated, “Improving the quality of public elementary and secondary schools will help our
Identifying Criteria for Redesigning Learning Environments 14
Nation meet the National Education Goals.” Despite these efforts, through good times (the budget surplus of
2000) and bad times (the current market crisis) the infrastructure of American schooling has remained almost a
state and local responsibility, with virtually no help from the federal level. Given the current budget deficits
among the vast majority of the States, local governments will continue to defer vital infrastructure needs from
year to year due to lack of funds. A high-quality learning environment is essential to educating the nation’s
children for the 21st century and the nation’s only option for a modern infrastructure in through a federal
Before leaders in technology education are able to identify a theoretical framework upon which a
curriculum is to stand, they must first grapple with two opposing views of the purpose of technology education
– education for all learners or career/technical education. Dakers (2006) identifies two opposing philosophies
that can serve as a framework for technology education, both inspired by ancient Greece, with the works of
Descartes and the birth of positivism. Later reappearing in Pascal’s writings of the mathematical mind, and
finally with Rousseau in the mid 1700s, the theoretical arguments of academic verses vocational were
established in education, and thus concluded that the overall purpose of education was to make a man (human
being) or a citizen. This dichotomy of views is referenced here to make explicit the underpinnings of a
theoretical framework for technology education. The position that the authors take in this dichotomy of views is
one that embraces the best of both views by teaching technology education to all students to foster technological
literacy while at the same time addressing the needs of a workforce seeking to compete in a global economy
The conceptual underpinning of the proposed philosophy of technology education is founded on the
ideas supported by the works of Woodward (1894), Dewey (1916), and Warner, Gray, Gekbracht, Gilbert,
Lisack, Kleintjes, et al. (1947), each of whom proposed that technology education is for all learners. That is,
they believed that technology education should equip the learner with necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities
in the context of technology, and to live, function, and work in today’s technological society. Furthermore, the
authors embrace a pragmatist view, also known as experimentalism, which has been promoted through the
progressive and reconstruction movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Pragmatism supports the
notion that knowledge is gained through problem solving, it places great emphasis on critical thinking and
Identifying Criteria for Redesigning Learning Environments 15
reasoning, and it seeks to solve the world’s problems with an open mind (Scott & Sarkees-Wircenski, 2001).
Moreover, the authors support technology education with an engineering design focus as a vehicle for fostering
technological literacy while simultaneously developing the skills needed to work in a global economy. A review
of some of the recent commissioned reports on preparing a workforce ready to compete in a global economy
uncovers lists of necessary job skills that are also technological literacy skills (Committee on Prospering in the
Global Economy of the 21st Century, 2007; National Center on Education and the Economy, 2006) stated
Developing technological literacy goes far beyond providing vocational skills and making students
“technologically savvy”; it is focused on understanding how technology has changed our world and how we live
in it. Michael (2006, p. 56) adds that technology education should prepare young people to cope in a rapidly
changing technological world; enable them to think and intervene creatively to improve that world; develop
skills required to participate responsibly in home, school and community life (citizenship); help them become
discriminating consumers and users of products; help them become autonomous, creative problem-solvers; …
encourage the ability to consider critically the use, effect, and value dimensions of design and technology
(technological awareness or literacy); it is our belief that technology education, with a focus on engineering
design, is as beneficial for students who want to become attorneys, physicians, accountants, business managers,
clergy, and writers as it is for future engineers according to Kelley & Kellam (2009).
Kelley & Kellam (2009) states that Jacobson and Wilensky (2006) suggest that young learners can
handle complex systems thinking even at the middle school level. They suggest using a constructivist approach
to learning, a philosophy of learning based upon foundational works of Dewey (1930), Piaget (1985), and
Vygotsky (1998). Jacobson and Wilensky wrote: “A central tenet of the constructivist or constructionist
learning approach is that a learner is actively constructing new understandings, rather than passively receiving
and absorbing ‘facts’” They believe that this method of learning can increase students’ understanding of
complex systems as well as be more interesting, engaging, and motivating for students when assigned authentic
problems studied within cooperative learning environments according to Kelley & Kellam (2009).
Notice that the constructivist teaching strategies suggested by Crawford, Wankat, Becker, and
Bransford et al. emphasize the critical importance of context for effective teaching and learning. Contextual
learning as described by Borko and Putnam (2000) is situated, distributed, and authentic. They suggest that all
Identifying Criteria for Redesigning Learning Environments 16
learning should take place, or be situated, in a specific physical and social context to acquire knowledge that is
intimately associated with those settings. Borko and Putnam also advocate that for transfer of learning to occur,
students must be provided with multiple similar experiences allowing an abstract mental model to form.
Hanson, Burton, and Guam (2006) proposed contextual learning as a key strength for technology and
engineering education programs, allowing for transfer of knowledge from core subjects. Additionally, they
suggested that contextual learning is a key concept in helping technology education align with No Child Left
Behind and providing learning opportunities for students to become prepared to work in a global economy. The
context of learning is also essential in designing a solution to an ill-structured problem. Glegg (1972) suggested
that the context in which a solution will be applied is not only an important design consideration but also critical
to learning design. Teaching engineering design must be done within a context that is authentic according to
Wicklein (2006) and Daugherty (2005) endorsed engineering design as an ideal platform for
addressing the standards for technological literacy (ITEA 2000/2002), while also creating an instructional
model that attracts and motivates students from all academic levels. Today’s workforce requires job skills that
move beyond excelling in the basic core subjects (Grasso & Martinelli, 2007). A national employer survey
identified desired job skills needed in today’s workforce. Today’s jobs “…require a portfolio of skills in
addition to academic and technical skills. These include communication skills, analytical skills, problem solving
and creative thinking, interpersonal skills, the ability to negotiate and influence, and self-management stated
enable researchers to study aspects of the real world for which events and actions have multiple causes and
consequences, and where order and structure coexist at many different scales of time, space, and organization
“In short, systems thinking is about synthesizing together all the relevant information we have about
an object so that we have a sense of it as a whole” (Kay & Foster, 1999, p. 2; Senge, 1994). Mapping out the
Identifying Criteria for Redesigning Learning Environments 17
complex issues of a system by reducing the system down to its parts and studying the relationships within those
various parts is a process that leads to a better understanding of the system. Furthermore, tensions may be
identified that will likely emerge when a new approach to the system is taken. Failing to understand that these
tensions exist and that the system contains these complex relationships, will likely result in a poor, inappropriate
design. It is critical to understand that these relationships impact the entire system and the manipulation of one
relationship, in turn, affects the entire system Kelley & Kellam (2009).
Kelley & Kellam (2009) reported that Biologist Lewis Thomas wrote: “When you are confronted by
any complex social system, such as an urban center or a hamster, with things about it that you’re dissatisfied
with and anxious to fix, you cannot just step in and set about fixing with the hope of helping. This realization is
one of the sore discouragements of our century…you cannot meddle with one part of a complex system from
the outside without almost certain risk of setting off disastrous events that you hadn’t counted on in other,
remote parts. If you want to fix something you are first obliged to understand…the whole system” (Thomas,
1974, p. 90).
Bar-Yam (2002) confirmed this dogma by making the case that the ability of science and technology to
expand human performance through design is dependant upon the understanding of systems and not just the
components that lie within that system. The insights of complex systems research and its methodologies may
become pervasive in guiding what we build, how we build it, and how we use and live with it. Possibly the most
visible outcome of these developments will be an improved ability of human beings aided by technology to
address complex global social and environmental problems, third world development, poverty in developing
countries, war and natural disasters (Bar-Yam, 2002, pp.381-382) according to Kelley & Kellam (2009).
Frank (2005) makes a strong case for a systems approach for technology education. He pointed out
that, traditionally, engineering and technology education used a bottom-up instructional approach, one that
attempts to determine and deliver all the knowledge and skills needed by compartmentalizing the subjects: a
separate math course, a physics course, statistics, etc. Frank proposed a different approach. Based on the
systems thinking approach, what follows is a proposal for a way to teach technology and instill technological
Identifying Criteria for Redesigning Learning Environments 18
literacy without first teaching the details (for instance, electricity basics and linear circuits for electronics, or
calculus and dynamics basics for mechanical engineering) stated Kelley & Kellam (2009).
Kelley & Kellam (2009) reports that the premise to this approach is that complete systems can be
studied conceptually and functionally without needing to know the details, a top-down approach. A top-down
approach focuses on characteristics and functionality of the entire system and the interrelating subsystems. This
approach to teaching engineering design addresses issues raised by some that suggest teaching engineering
design in technology education excludes some students who have not had, or lack, an aptitude for upper level
math or science. A top-down approach also provides a feasible solution to high school courses with students
enrolled at various stages of learning, for example, freshmen and seniors in the same class. These issues are of
great concern when suggesting that technology education with an engineering design focus is for all learners.
Shepherd (1998) shares the benefits of project-based learning for technology education that include
student engagement, increased motivation, and increased multidisciplinary knowledge, to name a few. His
findings are congruent with others who have found through research that students who experienced project-
based learning in a real world setting had significantly higher scores on the Cornell Critical Thinking Test
In an educational field such as technology education that has been accused of poorly communicating a
clear mission (Wicklein, 2006); it appears appropriate to consider a new theoretical foundation for the field.
Moreover, as new demands arise for educational programs that will equip the next generation of workers who
are trained to survive and thrive in a global economy, a new philosophical framework for technology education
may be needed. In this article, the authors have attempted to provide a philosophical framework for technology
education that holds true to some pedagogical approaches that are at the heart of the success of technology
education (contextual learning, problem-based instruction, and project-based instruction), while at the same
time embracing new philosophies of learning and thinking (constructivism, engineering design, and systems
thinking). The current literature is clear about the type of workers needed for today’s global economy (Pink,
2005; Friedman, 2005; National Academy of Engineering, 2004; National Academy of Engineering, 2005;
Woods et al., 2000). If technology educators determine that their purpose is to help prepare students to live and
Identifying Criteria for Redesigning Learning Environments 19
work in this global society, then these educators should consider carefully defining a philosophical framework
upon which to build a new curriculum. The authors wish for technology educators to consider the proposed
framework as a foundation for technology education as it has much promise in preparing students to function in
Utilize Social Networking Technology to Enhance Opportunities for Learning and Educational Equity
popular technologies—such as Facebook or MySpace, World of Warcraft, or Sim City—which at first glance
may seem like a waste of time, and brain cells. But these genres of technologies—Social Networking, Digital
Gaming, and Simulations—deserve a second, deeper, look at what’s actually going according Klopfer,
Have you heard of the above before? Your students have, and they almost certainly have strong
opinions about them. You don’t need to be a teenager to use or understand these technologies, or to use them in
your classroom. Market research data indicates that many a normal, middle-aged adults uses these technologies
with frequency. The fact is, you can be 17, 35, or 60, and when you begin to engage with them and observe
what’s really going on, you can begin to see that these technologies are more than just entertainment. These
technologies are already demonstrating how they impact the way we think, learn, and interact—and they are
also demonstrating the tremendous potential they have in these areas as well stated Klopfer, et al. (2009).
According to Klopfer, et al. (2009) the emergence of social networking technologies and the evolution
of digital games have helped shape the new ways in which people are communicating, collaborating, operating,
and forming social constructs. In fact, recent research is showing us that these technologies are shaping the way
we think, work, and live. This is especially true of our youngest generations—those arriving at classrooms
doors, soon to be leaving them and entering the workforce and society-at-large.
Games and simulations have been a key component of training doctors and military personnel, but
even businesses such as mining companies use games about a mining company in outer space to teach its
Identifying Criteria for Redesigning Learning Environments 20
employees about processes. Although that may seem a bit “off the wall,” the fact is major corporations, the
Department of Defense, and the medical community would not use these tools if they were not highly effective.
Although these examples are mainly centered on training purposes, there are deeper educational benefits to
digital simulations and games. Yet leaders in educational institutions have been reluctant to embrace these
technologies (Klopfer, et al., 2009). Likewise, where schools have often shield away from giving students an
online identity in a digital networking platforms to increase opportunities for learning, professional
production amongst their employees. Public education has been impeded by the security and other potential
Technology can have a reciprocal relationship with leaders and teachers. The emergence of new
technologies pushes educators to understanding and leveraging these technologies for classroom use; at the
same time, the on-the-ground implementation of these technologies in the classroom can (and does) directly
impact how innovative technologies continue to take shape. While many new technologies have emerged
throughout history, so has the cry for educators to find meaningful ways to integrate technologies into the
classroom – be it the typewriter, the television, the calculator, or the computer. And while some professional
educators may have become numb to this unwavering ‘call’ – and for good reason – it is crucial to consider that
the excitement over games and social networking goes beyond business and industry “crying wolf” to
measurable and observable outcomes at some point in the implementation. Evaluation must play a key role in
determining what works and what does not work, but this should not thwart experimentation.
Indeed, those previous technologies have a powerful place in instruction and the classroom; but
without them, strong lessons and learning objectives can still be achieved. With these more recent technologies,
we think educators should take the call, even if only on a trial basis.
Of course, as a result of these assaults on formal education, those in the “outside world” are often
quick to pounce on educators and the way education is (perceived to be) conducted in U.S. classrooms. This
bandwagon perspective has become a mounting dialogue, charging the field of education with the imperative
for a revolution— radical transformation of its system and practices. While it is clear that education is no
different from the other sectors in its need to adapt and modify to our transforming world, it is also clear that
many educators currently already implement excellent teaching practices and are able to skillfully create
Identifying Criteria for Redesigning Learning Environments 21
dynamic learning environments. Access to technology alone will not make an effective learning environment,
leader or teacher.
However, attacking educators’ current practices combined with the lack of acknowledgment of current
best practices only hinders the growth of the education sector (Pittman 2008). There are countless educators
who are masters at their craft, currently employing an array of exceptional instructional strategies. Lauding and
building upon these strategies is critical to effective growth in the education sector in order to bridge the
aforementioned divide. Attending to this end of the technology-teaching relationship has the additional benefit
of helping to shape emerging technologies that are most effective for building student cognition and teachers
instructional strategies. In the next section, Ghanem Al Bustami (2010) shares his research on what educational
leaders and teachers can do to facilitate effective programs and training students to become future leaders in the
How we can develop our students, teachers to become leaders? (Al Bustami, 2010)
Big Ideas for Better Schools: Ten Ways to Improve Education by Developing Leaders
Ideas for preparing leaders to develop a more systemic approach to improve support redesigning learning
Students and Teachers go beyond the textbook to study or to teach complex topics based on real-world
issues, such as the community needs, education, health or water quality in their communities or the
history of their town, analyzing information from multiple sources, including the Internet and
interviews with experts. Project-based class work is more demanding than traditional book-based
instruction, where students and teachers may just memorize facts from a single source. Instead,
students and teachers utilize original documents and data, mastering principles covered in traditional
courses but learning them in more meaningful ways. Projects can last weeks; multiple projects can
cover entire courses. Student work is presented to audiences beyond the teacher, including parents and
community groups.
Multi and different perspectives studies should enable students and teachers to reach across traditional
disciplines and explore their relationships, like James Burke described in his book Connections.
History, literature, and art can be interwoven and studied together. Integrated studies can help students
and teachers to increase and expand their investigation using many forms of knowledge and
expression.
valuable foundation for their lives as workers, family members, and citizens. These are the most
important personal leadership characters.
7- Adopt: Technology
Technology can improve almost every aspect of school, modernizing the nature of curriculum, student
assignments, parental connections, and administration. Online curricula now include lesson plans,
simulations, and demonstrations for classroom use and review. With online connections, students can
share their work and communicate more productively and creatively. Teachers can maintain records
and assessments using software tools and stay in close touch with students and families via email and
voicemail. Schools can reduce administrative costs by using technology tools, as other fields have
done, and provide more funds for the classroom.
8- Reorganize: Resources
Resources such as time, money, and facilities must be restructured. The school day should allow for
more in-depth project work beyond the 45-minute period, including block scheduling of classes two
hours or longer. Schools should not close for a three-month summer vacation, but should remain open
for student activities, teacher development, and community use. Through the practice of looping,
elementary school teachers stay with a class for two or more years, deepening their relationships with
students. More money in school districts should be directed to the classroom rather than the
bureaucracy.
New school construction and renovation should emphasize school design that supports students and
teachers collaborating in teams, with pervasive access to technology. Schools can be redesigned to also
serve as community centers that provide health and social services for families, as well as counseling
and parenting classes.
9- Involve: Parents
When schoolwork involves parents, students learn more. Parents and other caregivers are a child's first
teachers and can instill values that encourage school learning. Schools should build strong alliances
with parents and welcome their active participation in the classroom. Educators should inform parents
of the school's educational goals, the importance of high expectations for each child, and ways of
assisting with homework and classroom lessons.
Identifying Criteria for Redesigning Learning Environments 23
with how to tap into that potential and get them into those key leadership positions. Each student is different in
how should approach hem-her about taking on leadership roles. Many students will take the initiative on their
own to pursue leadership positions on campus or in their college. Others however, need a little push. With
some students all it takes is simply mentioning some of the leadership opportunities available. These students
will usually take this and run with it. Often these may be the students who did not know about the opportunities
or just needed a small amount of support from an external force to push them to pursue leadership opportunities.
Many students on the other hand need a lot more support than just a mere mention. Some students need to
directly tell them that they should pursue a position because they would be successful at it. Then to stay on
them repeatedly reminding them and reassuring them that they can successfully fill that position.
Once we have our students with leadership potential into those leadership roles that we knew they could learn
and grow from what do we do to develop that leadership potential? We can challenge a student too much and
cause a huge blow-up at an inopportune moment. We can push our students to think outside of him- herself and
social circle. We can realize that we have been pushing their way too hard. While we knew that they have
On the other hand, we cannot provide too much support for our students causing them to get lazy and too
comfortable either. By the time we can realize that simply supporting this student’s ideas and endeavors wasn’t
enough, they just need to feel free, can do, can decide, and being leaders.
Finding Balance
How do we find the balance between challenging and supporting our students? We don’t want to push our
students so hard that they simply shut down but we don’t want to support them so much that they don’t try to do
better either. We can give them some questions- problems - which a plant seed into their minds helps a lot.
One, you are not telling the student directly that what they’re doing is right or wrong. Two, once they ponder
the question for a little while they’ll most likely come up with an answer similar to what we would have
suggested but because they’ve come up with it on their own and it’s their idea they’ll be more accepting of it.
The key is to pose the question so that we have a slight push in the right direction. Questions like: Do you think
you should check with the rest of your committee about this first? Have you considered A, B, and C? What if
you did such and such instead? These questions are non-threatening but challenging. Each student is going to
respond differently, and the key is to learn what works with your students and tailor our style to them.
It is often hard to find out what does and doesn’t work with our students. Some students need and like more
challenge than others. Some students need a lot more support in the beginning until they get comfortable with
their leadership role. It is up to us as professionals to get to know our students and learn what’s going to work
best for them. Each student is going to be different; it’s simply a matter of us adjusting our
a) Necessary competencies and mindsets to operate in a deregulated, competitive education and schools
environment.
b) Necessary competencies and mindsets to operate in upstream and downstream energy achievements.
B. Target group
Leaders must identify our target group in order to develop the several levels of leadership with the needed skills
and competences. .
C. Need Analysis
A details Needs Analysis should happen in two stages:
The first stage involved a detailed analysis of strategic challenges, competency requirements and training needs
requirement based on in-depth interviews with the students – future teachers.
The second stage involved research with global education schools and faculty having extensive experience and
exposure to leadership and management development programs in education and school leadership.
D. Design
Academic structure must includes programs to develop research skills, teaching strategies, communication
skills, counseling and executive education, This program must design to impart competencies at three levels:
E. Delivery
The first phase focuses on providing general leadership competencies to create a common and shared language
and understanding.
The second phase to build on strategic and leadership skills. Based on feedbacks, participants can also provide
extensive one on one coaching from senior teachers- students professionals.
The third phase focused on advanced concepts leadership for teaching and education, with issues like
instructional supervision, curriculum, technology, assessment, community services.
G. Evaluation
The individuals and groups should assessed through their project preparation and presentations, peer reviews
and personal interview with a panel of experts from and outside the organization. High performers in the
programs need to be identified. Further learning paths and career opportunities also need to be derived from the
exercise.
H. Way forward
To continue the learning process beyond the programs, suggestion and new up-dates ideas need to provide
groups of participants – cross-functional strategic projects over a period of time. This serves three purposes:
Identifying Criteria for Redesigning Learning Environments 26
Many researchers and educators now advocate for an evolution in educational practices and
approaches to instruction, which not only align with the processes and operations of the world outside of school,
but also leverage the emerging power and potential of these new processes. It is critical that education not only
seek to mitigate this disconnect in order to make these two “worlds” more seamless, but of course also to
leverage the power of these emerging technologies for instructional gain and technologies
As we blossom toward new directions by rethinking and redesigning learning environments to meet the
changes for the next generation of both students and teachers in the 21st Century, this research review provides
two conceptual directions, one for process and the other implementation (Al Bustami, 2010) of key practices.
These topics are suggested to support the changes that were examined and presented in this report and further
research and dialogue. Although these suggestions are by no means exclusive or exhaustive, they are just a few
of the ideas that need to be included in the rethinking process and then implemented in the planning directions
to help both the students and teachers meet the challenges of education in the 21st Century.
Aden, Nancy, Sybouts, Ward & Wess, Roger (1998). Student services in distant learning environments. Publications
article=1011&context...
Bar-Yam, Y. (2002). Unifying principles in complex systems. In M. C. Roco & W. S. Bainbridge (Eds.), Converging
technologies for improving human performance: nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and
Identifying Criteria for Redesigning Learning Environments 27
Borko, H. & Putnam, RR. T. (2000). The role of context in teacher learning and teacher education, In Contextual
teaching and learning: Preparing teachers to enhance student success in the workplace and beyond (pp. 34 67).
Coughlan M, Cronin P, Ryan F (2007) Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: quantitative research. Br J Nurs
16(11): 658–63.
Daugherty, M. (2005). A changing role for technology teacher education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 42(1),
41-58.
Frank, M. (2005). A systems approach for developing technological literacy. Journal of Technology Education, 17(1),
19-34.
Friedman, T. (2005). The world is flat. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Grasso, D. & Martinelli, D. (2007). Holistic engineering. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(28), 8-9.
Kay, J. J. & Foster, J. (1999) About teaching systems thinking. In G. Savage & P. Roe (Eds.) Proceedings of the HKK
Kelley, Todd & Kellam, Nadia (2009). A theoretical framework to guide the re-engineering of technology education.
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v20n2/kelley.html
Klopfer, Eric, Osterweil, Scot, Groff, Jennifer, & Haas, Jason (2009). The instructional power of and how teachers can
Michael, M. (2006). How to understand mundane technology. In J. Dakers (Ed.), Defining technological literacy:
]National Academy of Engineering (2004). The engineer of 2020: Visions of engineering in the new century.
investment.html
Identifying Criteria for Redesigning Learning Environments 28
Pink, D. (2005). A whole new mind: Moving from the information age to the conceptual age. New York: Penguin.
Roman, H. T. (2004). Blame it on the engineers. The Technology Teacher, 63(6), 21-23.
Pittman, J. (2008). Meeting the diverse needs of learners with technology. Didactics World. Pandula, R.H. & Hisham,
Senge, P. et. al. (1994;1990) The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization
Shepherd, N. G. (1998). The Probe Method: A problem-based learning model's affect on critical thinking skills of fourth
and fifth grade social studies students (Ed.D. dissertation, North Carolina State University, 1998). Dissertation
The National Center on the Educational Quality of the Workforce (1995). First findings from the EQW National
Wicklein, R. C. (2006). Five good reasons for engineering design as the focus for technology education. The Technology
Woods, D. R., Felder, R. M., Rugarcia, A., & Stice, J. E. (2000). The future of engineering education III: Developing
Acknowledgement
Jacqueline R. Long-Jackson is a minority student and native of Pine Bluff AR. She graduated from
Pine Bluff High School, where she was one of the two first disabled students to graduate from that high school.
Jackson graduated in 1987 with her B.A. degree in Print/Editorial Journalism from the University of Arkansas
at Little Rock (UALR); in 2008 she received her B.A. degree in Sociology from UALR; and she is currently
pursing her M.A degree in Rehabilitation Counseling from UALR. She is a physically challenged student and
mother of two children, currently working as a graduate research assistant in the Counseling Adult
Rehabilitation Education Department and an adult peer mentor at UALR. She is a shining example of the next
generation of learners that work and study from home whom leaders must consider as we rethink new learning
and work places.